Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you. I want to reassure this chamber regarding the matter raised yesterday concerning the RCMP. The Minister of Public Safety will be discussing it directly with the Commissioner of the RCMP. Although I don’t have the timelines you’re asking for regarding the regulations, I have been assured that the government is approaching this exercise with the seriousness it deserves and has been doing so since the bill received Royal Assent.

I want to specifically point out that the government is working with the Commissioner’s office to ensure that it has the resources needed to do its work. The government is also committed to adopting the regulations on Part VII of the Official Languages Act and to consulting Canadians to define what constitutes a strong francophone presence, in order to give concrete expression to the right to work and to be served in French. The government expects the RCMP to live up to this principle and to fill bilingual positions with bilingual staff.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Plett, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Coyle, calling the attention of the Senate to the importance of finding solutions to transition Canada’s society, economy and resource use in pursuit of a fair, prosperous, sustainable and peaceful net-zero emissions future for our country and the planet.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, if I might, I would like to reset the clock on behalf of Senator Carignan for the balance of his time.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum moved second reading of Bill S-271, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to give second reading to Bill S-271, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

I would like to acknowledge that I have had the privilege of working on two private members’ bills — Bills S-271 and S-272 — for Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, and the Lands Advisory Board, or LAB. It is critical that we, as parliamentarians, start working directly with the people who are adversely affected by issues — many not of their own making but from other sources, like government legislation.

Bills S-271 and S-272 are so intimately connected that they are discussed together in many of the quotes. As such, I will be repeating some of my quotes concerning Bill S-272 from yesterday.

Bill S-271 is important legislation that is necessary to clarify and confirm with conclusive certainty that the statutory duty of the RCMP includes the enforcement of First Nation laws and the execution of warrants that may, under First Nation laws, be lawfully executed and performed by peace officers.

Bill S-271 will also amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to include the following definition of First Nation laws:

First Nation law means

(a) a bylaw made under the Indian Act;

(b) a First Nation law as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act; or

(c) a law enacted by a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of a First Nation under a self-government agreement implemented by an Act of Parliament. . . .

The June 2021 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, or INAN, entitled Collaborative Approaches to Enforcement of Laws in Indigenous Communities, states:

The committee acknowledges that this is a complex issue, and that identifying the barriers to enforcing First Nations laws and by-laws is challenging. What is clear, however, is that addressing it requires significant collaboration between First Nations, federal departments and agencies, and provinces/territories. There is no “off-the-shelf” solution, and any response must be distinctions-based and recognize the need for individual communities to craft their own solutions, as desired, in order to respect their inherent rights.

The committee continues:

. . . the experiences shared by witnesses about how enforcement issues are affecting their People requires the Government of Canada to act now.

. . . the recommendations presented in this report are aimed at moving this issue forward in the short-term, recognizing that in many cases, longer-term solutions are required.

On August 22, 2023, my office contacted the chair of the Indigenous Affairs Committee regarding the status of the 10 recommendations made in the June 2021 report, entitled Collaborative Approaches to Enforcement of Laws in Indigenous Communities. Recommendation 1 suggests the establishment of a permanent federal advisor who would, among other things, advise the Minister of Justice and Attorney General regarding the challenges to the enforceability of Indigenous laws and the unique issues relating to jurisdiction on-reserve and First Nations lands management, and identify solutions to the lack of enforcement of First Nations laws and bylaws within one year. Recommendation 2 suggests the Government of Canada convene a working group on how to address issues of law enforcement, prosecution and Charter compliance in Indigenous communities within two years. The response we received was that, “Justice was the lead on the government response; due to the 2021 election, it ended that work.” We further asked, “Were they able to determine if the government took any actions in response before it ended that work?” to which there has been no response to date.

So what recourse do First Nations have, since this involves different levels of government and a whole-of-government approach? This is the reason they are appealing to the Senate for help and support.

While temporary emergency measures were invoked to address COVID-19 and assist in enforcement of First Nations health protection bylaws, these measures did not and do not address the ongoing issue of why First Nations bylaws are not being enforced in the first place.

In the article “Solving the Indian Act by-law enforcement issue: Prosecution of Indian Act by-laws” by Olthuis Kleer Townshend LLP, the author states:

First Nations by-laws are ignored by many police forces across the country because those police forces know that in most cases, there is no effective way to prosecute or convict those who violate these by-laws. While section 81 of the Indian Act allows bands to make on-reserve by-laws in areas including traffic control, residency, public health, and intoxicants, and while some of these by-laws can include penalties such as fines and/or imprisonment, the Indian Act does not specify whether the provinces/territories, federal government, or First Nations themselves are responsible for prosecuting by-law infractions. Lack of federal and provincial/territorial coordination or leadership on this issue has led to a situation where oftentimes neither federal nor provincial/territorial levels of government are choosing to prosecute these laws.

The author continues:

. . . Many police forces view Indian Act by-laws as not having the same legitimacy as federal, provincial/territorial or municipal law, and as not being worth the liability risk and resource expense required to enforce them. . . .

. . . The fact that the Indian Act doesn’t specify whether the provinces/territories, federal government, or bands themselves are responsible for prosecuting by-law infractions leads to both the provincial government and the federal government claiming that it’s not their problem, with First Nations stuck with the resulting lawlessness and insecurity.

The federal and provincial governments need to step up, take the security and well-being of First Nations communities seriously and ensure these by-laws are being enforced and prosecuted. It is the duty of both levels of government to protect citizens, particularly Indigenous citizens with whom the government has a fiduciary relationship.

The problems with enforcement and prosecution of First Nations laws were known in 1999, when Bill C-49 was first enacted, but were thought of as being part of an ongoing, longer‑term discussion that never took place. Twenty years later, the COVID-19 pandemic starkly illuminated the effects of the failure to prosecute and enforce and placed lives in danger over these many years. It illuminated the lack of progress or initiative in addressing prosecution and enforcement.

Honourable senators, it is important to reiterate what was stated in the speech on Bill S-272 that as part of our consideration of Bill C-32 in December of 2022, Grand Chief Garrison Settee of MKO provided our Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples and our Standing Senate Committee on National Finance with a clear written explanation of why Part 4, Division 3 of Bill C-32 should have been amended to ensure clarity on the enforcement and prosecution of First Nations laws enacted pursuant to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management.

Colleagues, I again to want to reiterate the statement made by Chief Heidi Cook from the Misipawistik Cree Nation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs regarding the community’s experiences during an outbreak of COVID-19 in the winter of 2020-21:

During that time, it was expressed by the members of our pandemic emergency response team, our health team and our enforcement team that we felt abandoned. We were struggling to control the spread. Our second wave reached 155 cases and close to 300 contacts. We all suffered personal fallout. I feel that we all have PTSD from the situation we found ourselves in.

We have not enacted any laws after the expiry of our emergency law. The decision was, basically, what good is the law if it’s not enforceable? As a result, we haven’t done anything since then.

On May 25, 2021, Lands Advisory Board Chairman Robert Louie informed the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs:

Many land code First Nations have faced refusal from police forces when they ask for help, with police forces expressing concerns regarding validity of land code laws, concerns about potential liability of police officers, and uncertainty regarding who will prosecute laws if charges are laid. It has been difficult to this point to reach agreement with either federal or provincial prosecutors to tackle First Nation laws under the Framework Agreement.

On November 22, 2022, LAB Chairman Robert Louie advised our Indigenous Peoples Committee during its consideration of Bill C-32:

We have come to find out over the last 20-plus years that Canada and the RCMP are not readily backing and enforcing the First Nation laws that First Nations have passed. It’s an issue that is bubbling. It’s something that we didn’t quite expect at the outset, but we’re working now with Canada and with provinces and with Attorneys General both at the Canadian and provincial levels to deal with this issue.

The RCMP Commissioner’s February 17, 2020, letter to MKO Grand Chief Settee served to provide an earlier confirmation of LAB Chairman Robert Louie’s statements that land code First Nations faced a “refusal from police forces” and that “the RCMP are not readily backing and enforcing the First Nation laws that First Nations have passed.” The RCMP Commissioner advised Grand Chief Settee:

The RCMP recognizes First Nations’ authority under the FNLMA. However, there are concerns as to whether the FNLMA Land Codes provide the legal authority to enact COVID-19 related laws. Pending further direction, the RCMP will continue to follow the processes in place with respect to the enforcement of COVID-related bylaws passed under the Indian Act, as well as enforcing applicable provincial laws.

On March 15, 2021, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Lands and Economic Development at Indigenous Services Canada wrote to LAB Chairman Robert Louie:

I appreciate the frustration felt by First Nations who have taken on such fundamental aspects of their governance through the enactment of a Land Code, only to be forced to rely on Indian Act authorities to address the current COVID-19 pandemic. While more analysis will need to be done, I have instructed my team to collaborate with you on options to expand and clarify authorities through the next amendments to the Framework Agreement.

RCMP Inspector Jeff Preston, officer in charge of the Campbell River, British Columbia, detachment, told the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee in the other place on May 6, 2021:

Generally speaking, band bylaws are treated as federal laws that are enforceable by the RCMP, the police of jurisdiction or the band bylaw enforcement officers.

However, when responding on June 1, 2023, to a question from Chief Hubert Watt of the God’s Lake First Nation about the enforcement of First Nations laws on the second day of the MKO and RCMP symposium, the chief federal prosecutor for Manitoba said:

With respect to your question, with respect to specifically the issue of the Indian Act bylaws, it’s always been the position of the federal Prosecution Service that we don’t prosecute those bylaws. So, I take it that the RCMP, once they get that message from us, they take the position that if the Crown’s not going to prosecute, we’re (RCMP) not going to lay charges.

As I noted in my speech at second reading for Bill S-272, those are conflicting statements. The RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, or PPSC, witnesses did share many pieces of this puzzle with the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee, but the RCMP and PPSC witnesses did not put the pieces together so that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs could see the actual full picture.

Honourable senators, to put all of this in very simple terms, it has become the established practice of the RCMP that if there is no potential prosecution of an offence under a First Nation law, the RCMP will not enforce and will not lay a charge pursuant to the First Nation law — even where the First Nation law is recognized by the RCMP as a federal law, and unquestionably has the force and effect of a federal regulation under the laws of Canada.

First Nations from coast to coast to coast are experiencing a crisis in public safety and well-being, largely driven by an epidemic of addictions that are driven by virtually uncontrolled drug dealing and bootlegging. The failure and refusal of the RCMP to enforce, and the failure and refusal of the PPSC to prosecute First Nation laws, including intoxicants prohibitions and trespass laws, are directly contributing to this crisis.

Honourable senators, in the CBC News article, released on April 4, 2023, entitled “Chiefs welcome RCMP efforts to curb bootlegging in northern Manitoba, but say more needs to be done” — with the byline “Manitoba RCMP say they’re helping remote First Nations communities enact local bylaws” — 11 northern First Nations in Manitoba, including God’s Lake, have recently declared states of emergency amid a range of social issues in their communities, including suspected drug-related deaths; suicide; inadequate emergency health and fire supports; and concerns around substance use.

The article states, “Meanwhile, there has also been rising tension between RCMP and some communities.”

The article continues:

Several communities like God’s Lake are attempting to enact local bylaws restricting or prohibiting drug and alcohol use, and have asked for more support from government and RCMP.

In a news release, it said that RCMP enforcement:

. . . “will continue as per the expressed wishes of community leadership” in communities that have their own drug and alcohol bylaws and “have asked to make enforcement a priority.”

But Chief Hubert Watt takes issue with how the RCMP has characterized their response to communities that want help enacting local drugs and alcohol bylaws. Watt said:

I think they’re just saying that because more and more First Nations are coming out and saying that the RCMP are not very effective . . . in northern communities . . . .

The article also states:

The First Nation wanted RCMP involved in mandatory searches of vehicles entering the community, but RCMP won’t proactively search every vehicle due to legal limitations, according to both Watt and Phillip Kanabee, a God’s Lake band councillor.

Kanabee said:

I’ve been fighting with the RCMP for the longest time to get them to enforce the bylaws . . . . We try to work with RCMP in the community but . . . the partnership is not there.

The article continues, “Police also recognize that some community bylaws around drugs and alcohol have been in place for decades . . . .”

Manitoba RCMP media relations spokesperson Tara Seel said in a statement that “. . . our recent communication regarding enforcement in this area is in no way saying this is a new initiative.”

Seel said:

. . . the RCMP, Crown prosecutors and other partners need to operate within the bounds of the provincial and federal laws — including the Charter of Rights and the Privacy Act — when investigating illegal distribution of drugs or alcohol.

Seel added that bootlegging enforcement has to be balanced with “a number of other public safety priorities,” including responding to violent crime.

I have worked in God’s Lake for about six years as a dentist, and my own personal observation is that much of the violent crime stems from alcohol and drug abuse. I was there for weeks at a time.

Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation Chief Angela Levasseur stated that:

. . . communities are dealing with mental health and addictions issues that worsened during the pandemic, on top of the intergenerational trauma from residential schools and child and family welfare system.

She goes on to say that if:

. . . provincial and federal government made a greater investment in healing initiatives, First Nations people would not feel the need to self-medicate with substances.

Colleagues, I spoke to Chief Hubert Watt this morning, and he stated:

We have asked the RCMP to search for contraband every time the winter road opens, but they don’t do anything. The confiscation in March 2023 was a one-time event.

Chief Watt says that if that were done all the time, imagine what they could have confiscated and the violence that could have been prevented.

The confiscation he was referring to took place on March 10 to 12 on key roads heading into northern communities, including Highway 6 and Provincial Road 373, as well as winter roads into Gods Lake Narrows, Island Lake and surrounding communities.

The RCMP said they seized 26 bottles of liquor from a single vehicle during the checkstop. They issued a total of 75 traffic tickets; executed four arrest warrants; and charged one driver with impaired driving and another with trafficking under the Cannabis Act during that checkstop period. The news release said that RCMP enforcement “will continue as per the expressed wishes of community leadership” in communities that have their own drug and alcohol bylaws and “have asked to make enforcement a priority.”

As Chief Watt stated, that checkstop was a one-time event. It didn’t happen again.

Honourable senators, the final four words of each of the provisions speaking to the prohibition of intoxicants in Treaties 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are “shall be strictly enforced.” The strict enforcement by the RCMP of First Nation laws prohibiting intoxicants is a treaty promise and treaty commitment of the Crown. The refusal and failure of the RCMP to enforce intoxicants prohibitions enacted by First Nations are a breach of Canada’s treaty promise and commitment, and it is also contributing to the crises of health and public safety in First Nations.

On February 3, 2023, Chief David Monias of the Cross Lake Band in northern Manitoba wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoba; the RCMP; the Honourable Marc Miller; the Honourable David Lametti; the Honourable Patty Hajdu; and the Honourable Marco Mendicino to make an urgent request to uphold the rule of law and the treaty commitment to enforce and prosecute Cross Lake Band bylaws via section 85.1 of the Indian Act. He stated:

The terms of Treaty 5 set out an unmistakable and explicit treaty promise to enforce a prohibition of intoxicants on our reserve, including to enforce our duly enacted band bylaw, pursuant to section 85.1 of the Indian Act that is currently in force.

In the words of Treaty 5:

Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians, that within the boundary of Indian reserves, until otherwise determined by Her Government of the Dominion of Canada, no intoxicating liquor shall be allowed to be introduced or sold, and all laws now in force, or hereafter to be enacted, to preserve Her Indian subjects inhabiting the reserves, or living elsewhere within Her North-west Territories, from the evil influence of the use of intoxicating liquors, shall be strictly enforced.

Chief David Monias wrote:

The Manitoba Court of Appeal in R. v. Campbell, 996 CanLII 7298 (MB CA), which case was prosecuted by PPSC, upheld the Charter compliance of both the s.85.1 By‑law of the Mosakahiken Cree Nation and of s.85.1 of the Indian Act. However, to our knowledge, this was the last enforcement and prosecution of a s.85.1 By-law in northern Manitoba — some twenty-seven years ago.

In the April 5, 2023, news article by The Canadian Press entitled “Feds back away from timeline for law to make First Nations policing essential service,” it stated that the then minister Marco Mendicino told The Canadian Press last December “that the government hoped to table a bill in 2023.”

The article goes on to say that:

This week, however, a press secretary for the minister backed away from any timeline, saying “It is too early to say when the legislation will be tabled.”

Honourable senators, through Bill C-49 — the First Nations Land Management Act — in 1999 and through Bill C-428 — the Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act — in 2014, Parliament intended to create new and enhanced lawmaking authorities to support the self-determination of First Nations. One published official summary of Bill C-49 says that:

Bill C-49 would expand the range of powers that First Nations could exercise and no longer leave them at the discretion of the Governor in Council or Minister.

A departmental summary states that:

Bill C-428 . . . eliminates the Minister’s oversight in regards to the submission, coming into force and disallowance of by‑laws and gives First Nations the autonomy and responsibility over the development, enactment and coming into force of by-laws.

Despite the intent of Parliament to enhance the self-determining, lawmaking powers of First Nations, Bill C-49 and Bill C-428 have created stranded regimes of First Nation laws that are not enforced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and have not been subject to prosecution by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

Colleagues, acting in his capacity as Chief of the Westbank First Nation, Chief Louie wrote Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Grand Chief Settee to request:

Today, I wanted to write to you in my capacity as the re‑elected Chief of Westbank First Nation. I would like to see any change to federal law encompass Indian Act by-laws, the Framework Agreement and other self-government agreements such as the Westbank Self-Government Agreement.

Evidence given on May 13, 2021, at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs by Mr. Brooks Arcand-Paul, a lawyer, former vice-president with the Indigenous Bar Association and in-house counsel for the Alexander First Nation, states:

As a practitioner on reserve, and having primarily first nations in Alberta as clients while in private practice, I am intimately aware of the issues that exist within the framework of enforcement on reserve in Alberta and certainly on the Prairies. I’ve been dealing with this issue regularly in my practice. The same problems are highlighted time and time again.

Over the course of my work on these issues, I’ve been stonewalled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada with regard to the enforcement of bylaws for first nations.

The public prosecutions office is not seized with the ability to prosecute these bylaws . . . .

I would argue that such bylaws, formed under the act, are within the ambit of federal laws, given the first nations’ stature within the federation. However, I would go one step further and recognize that Mr. Richstone was correct in his statement that laws passed by first nations should be attracted with the appropriate enforcement by all levels of law enforcement in Canada. Many of your agents are offering their willingness . . . to enforce our laws. It is now your turn.

In sum, I make three major recommendations: a review of the bylaw-making capacities of first nations to amend the act to reflect that first nations have the authority to enact laws, not just bylaws; that such laws be adequately funded for first nations to develop and/or enforce; and finally, that such laws be enforced by those charged to do so, akin to the laws of other law-making jurisdictions in the federation, including your own.

In the same committee meeting, Mr. Derek Yang, Director, Community Services, Tla’amin Nation, British Columbia, states:

The short story that we want to present is that self-determination is virtually meaningless without the authority and capacity to pass and enforce laws. Many federal and provincial laws, negotiating mandates, funding decisions and approaches to enforcement undermine or weaken first nation law enforcement rather than supporting and strengthening it.

Mr. Murray Browne, legal counsel for Tla’amin Nation stated:

We have the unfortunate situation that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has said that it can only enforce COVID bylaws under the Indian Act. That’s a nice step under the Indian Act, but it’s problematic otherwise.

We need changes to the federal offence act . . . . They need to be amended to refer specifically to the authority of treaty first nations.

We need to retain all of the authorities under the Indian Act as well as under the land code.

We also need to think that enforcement is not only about prosecution. Much of enforcement is education, but it is also ticketing. Right now, first nations in B.C. do not have access to municipal ticketing the way municipalities do. I don’t know about other provinces, but we have to have ticketing enforcement, because it works.

Colleagues, as I stated yesterday with regard to Bill S-272, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak recently engaged in a legislative co-development exercise with the Manitoba Minister of Justice to secure the introduction, consideration and passage on May 30, 2023, of amendments to the Manitoba Provincial Offences Act which will — for the first time in Manitoba — create a ticketing regime for First Nation laws. Similar provincial laws were pursued by First Nations and passed in Alberta on December 9, 2020, and in Saskatchewan on May 11, 2023.

Together with the enactment of the amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act set out in Bill S-271, these provincial ticketing regimes for First Nation laws will significantly enhance the duty of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to enforce First Nation laws in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Therefore, in addition to addressing the currently stranded regimes of Indian Act bylaws and Land Code laws, when enacted into law, Bill S-271 will address and clarify with conclusive certainty that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have a duty to enforce:

. . . a law enacted by a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of a First Nation under a self-government agreement implemented by an Act of Parliament.

When enacted into law, Bill S-271 will also clarify with conclusive certainty that it is the will of Parliament that all duly enacted First Nation laws are to be effectively enforced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Honourable senators, I want to express that First Nations have not sat idly by as these ongoing problems hit their communities and endangered lives. They have gone on to create, to seek relationships, to amend laws and to propose solutions and put them in place.

As a key part of the ongoing efforts of Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, Grand Chief Settee to secure the effective recognition, respect, enforcement and prosecution of First Nation laws, MKO has successfully pursued the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commanding Officer of RCMP D Division in Manitoba to enter into a Protocol relating to the Enforcement and Prosecution of By-Law(s) adopted pursuant to s. 81 and 85.1 of the Indian Act. The renewed protocol is effective as of June 30, 2023, as a two-year pilot project proposed by the Director of Public Prosecutions in a March 9, 2023, letter to Grand Chief Settee:

I further propose that my officials work with your organization and other key stakeholders during these three months to discuss the possibility of developing a broader pilot program for the enforcement and prosecution of Indian Act bylaws beyond those directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This kind of pilot would not be a permanent solution, but rather a joint opportunity to expand on the work done to date beyond the crisis posed by the pandemic. In addition, it would be an opportunity to gather evidence and experience that can then inform the development of solutions to better serve your communities in the long term.

Colleagues, it is MKO’s understanding that the two-year pilot project of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, or PPSC, the RCMP and MKO for the enforcement and prosecution of Indian Act bylaws through the protocol is unique in Canada and applies only to those of the 23 law-making MKO First Nations that elect to participate. As there are 634 First Nations in Canada, this means that just 3.6% of First Nations in Canada have the opportunity to see the potential enforcement by RCMP and prosecution of offences by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada pursuant to their Indian Act bylaws through a protocol process. As well, the protocol does not address the enforcement and prosecution of all First Nation laws and therefore does not address the enforcement and prosecution of a First Nation law enacted pursuant to a land code or a First Nation law enacted by a First Nation that has entered into a self-government agreement.

I am honoured to share with you that MKO and Lands Advisory Board, or LAB, representatives closely collaborated with my office to develop this version of Bill S-271. I can tell you it was a lot of work; I’m not a lawyer, and it took me time to understand what I was going to be speaking on and to make certain that I was comfortable.

This represents a concrete example of co-development in action of proposed legislation affecting First Nations. Such legislative co-development reflects and is consistent with Articles 19 and 38 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and therefore reflects and is consistent with Canada’s United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

MKO and LAB stated that the co-development of legislation by a senator and other parliamentarians with First Nations is consistent with the call for the actions of government to be on a nation-to-nation basis and consistent with the principles of reconciliation, as emphasized in the Deputy Prime Minister’s response on December 7, 2022, to a question by Senator Loffreda in committee on Bill C-32.

I call on all honourable senators to fully support the self‑determination and enhanced law-making powers of all First Nations in Canada that are intended by Parliament through Bill C-428 for those First Nations who choose to exercise the law-making authority intended by Bill C-49 as well as First Nations under self-government agreements entered into between a First Nation and Canada.

I call on my honourable colleagues to fully support and endorse Bill S-271, refer it to committee and pass the proposed amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act that are set out within it, which will clarify and confirm with conclusive certainty the statutory duty of the RCMP to enforce First Nation laws.

Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Senator McCallum, thank you very much for explaining the bill. I wanted to bring something to your attention and ask you a question related to a discussion we had yesterday.

In the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, policing would be done by the Ontario Provincial Police and the Sûreté du Québec in many of the northern communities, as well as by First Nation police services. In Northern Ontario, it’s the Nishnawbe Aski Police Service or the Treaty Three Police Service.

How will the amendment to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act impact those? Because that would maybe mean provincial — or, in the case of tripartite agreements, between the federal and provincial — interplay with stand-alone police services in First Nation communities.

Is there a mechanism that will allow that to take place or will that need further legislation? Is that something the committee should look at?

Senator McCallum: I made a statement about how it doesn’t affect all the communities across Canada because some of them have their own agreements. It excludes them.

These are specifically for a certain group of people. I did ask that question because I was working with lawyers. I made a statement in there that it doesn’t involve the ones that already have their own ways of dealing with the issues. There are some bands in B.C. that have already dealt with this through a tripartite agreement. It doesn’t include them.

When this bill goes to committee, we will invite the groups that have their own agreements to tell us what works and what doesn’t in order to inform parliamentarians about any concerns we should have.

(On motion of Senator McPhedran, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest:

That the Senate of Canada recognize that:

(a)climate change is an urgent crisis that requires an immediate and ambitious response;

(b)human activity is unequivocally warming the atmosphere, ocean and land at an unprecedented pace, and is provoking weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe, including in the Arctic, which is warming at more than twice the global rate;

(c)failure to address climate change is resulting in catastrophic consequences especially for Canadian youth, Indigenous Peoples and future generations; and

(d)climate change is negatively impacting the health and safety of Canadians, and the financial stability of Canada;

That the Senate declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency which requires that Canada uphold its international commitments with respect to climate change and increase its climate action in line with the Paris Agreement’s objective of holding global warming well below two degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius; and

That the Senate commit to action on mitigation and adaptation in response to the climate emergency and that it consider this urgency for action while undertaking its parliamentary business.

Hon. Leo Housakos: With leave, I would like to take the adjournment for the balance of my time.

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, I move that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Fabian Manning rose pursuant to notice of March 7, 2023:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to the life of Gordon Pinsent.

He said: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15, and I am not ready to speak at this time. Therefore, I move the adjournment of the debate in my name for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Manning, debate adjourned.)

(At 3:53 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Leo Housakos: Again, I ask leave to take the adjournment for the balance of my time.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?